Is human kind still evolving? 
If Natural Selection is the vital mechanism of our evolution and if we
were the species that is characterised by making artefacts and tools
to change our environment, then how the pressure from envrionmental
perturbation could reach to the makeup of our genome?

This article suggests that we are still evolving, although our
evolution is just as transcendental as that of our ancestors, it is
not quite as visible as theirs. We are evolving, you just can't see
it;

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn7974 
------------------

You may also enjoy reading (you will need to subscribe for this one);
------------------

Civilisation left its mark on our genes

    * 24 December 2005
    * Bob Holmes
    * Magazine issue 2531

A detailed look at human DNA has shown that a significant percentage
of our genes have been shaped by natural selection in the past 50,000
years

DARWIN'S fingerprints can be found all over the human genome. A
detailed look at human DNA has shown that a significant percentage of
our genes have been shaped by natural selection in the past 50,000
years, probably in response to aspects of modern human culture such as
the emergence of agriculture and the shift towards living in densely
populated settlements.

One way to look for genes that have recently been changed by natural
selection is to study mutations called single-nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) - single-letter differences in the genetic code. The trick is
to look for pairs of SNPs that occur together more often than would be
expected from the chance genetic reshuffling that inevitably happens
down the generations. Such correlations are known as linkage
disequilibrium, and can occur when natural selection favours a
particular variant of a gene, causing the SNPs nearby to be selected
as well.

Robert Moyzis and ...
The complete article is 557 words long.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825314.200.html

-----------------

Since evolution is a long-term event, the only way to really know if
we are currently evolving is to ask the question in about 10,000
years.

I agree, but also if the advances of modern medicine are maybe
upsetting natural selection by making it possible for persons with
genetic weaknesses to survive and reproduce who would not have been
able to in the past.
Mind you, please, this is just an hypothesis of mine;  I am all in
favor of modern medicine and what it can do for anyone, especially
those who need it most.
Myoarin

I totally agree with MyOarIn

In addition another form of 'natural selection' has been taking place,
the best chance for a male to survive is to be unfit for military
service.

I probably owe my existence to my grandfather having a TB scar on his lung in WWI

CONSIDER; Evolution [ IF TRUE] depends on a change from one form to
another, starting with cells in a primordial 'pea soup'. The process,
according to those who believe it, goes on for millions or billions of
years, with changes from aquatic to land based, from little to big and
back again to little. Finally arriving at apes/ monkeys and from there
to us. In all this, the primary concern is to PROCREATE. To aid this
process, multiple sexual liasons are the norm. It has been proved
through studies that dominant male monkeys after achieving the ALPHA
MALE position, will attempt to kill off all the progeny of the former
ALPHA MALE, and then breed with ALL the available females, thus
ensuring continuation of the ALPHA MALES genes. Foodwise, very little
thought is given to 'tomorrows' food supply, and gathering is the only
method.
So how come, in a very limited span of time, monkeys changed from
their known normal behaviour to so called early man who, in complete
contrast, thought about the future?, thought about spiritual matters [
things that could not be physically touched...God..?, thought about
others welfare?, and communicated with language?. Where is the gradual
leadup to these aspects. There is none.
Evolution is STILL just a theory.
CREATION, on the other hand, by God, explains it all. All animals and
all LIFE was created...according to its kind. Genesis 1;24.
Man was created, by God, "in his image", with language, ability to
think of the future, compassion, and love. Genesis 1;27.
Man is not just a higher form of animal. Animals do not care about
clothing [embarrassment] or where they defecate. Man does.
One major reason that Man shares some similarities with the animal
world is that we have to share the earth, breathe its air, live off
its produce. And with ONE major difference. Man has been given the job
of CARING for the earth and its animals. Genesis 1;28. In this
responsibility we often fail, but a lot of us really try. Why?. Simply
because we have bulit into us the ability to CARE. And evolution did
not put it there .

Nice to see some virtual friends here:  Happy New Year!

Returning to my previous comment, if modern medicine is upsetting
natural selection, that could be seen of itself to be demonstration of
evolution, albeit a negative one.  More and more people need
glasses/spectacles; some Westerners toes are now less articulated than
those of barefooters.
The positive evidence is more difficult to identify, but maybe blond,
blue-eyed persons of North European stock are losing out to more
dominant genes from the south.
This site is interesting.  Scroll down a way and you will see mention
of HIV.  We usually think of it as a horrible disease, but HIV  - and
other diseases -  are part of natural selection.  Those who survive or
cannot be infected probably have genes that protect them, allowing
them to survive and reproduce, which results in a population that is
more resistant.
The American natives succumbed to European diseases that were less
deadly to Europeans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Myoarin

Just to chime in on an interesting conversation...
I would agree that humans, while still evolving, are probably evolving
less than both our ancestors and other contemporary species.  Our
ability to provide food, water, and shelter on a very large scale has
removed these as major environmental pressures (although in third
world countries these are still all too real).  Modern medicine
certainly factor into that, with reduced infant and child mortality
rates in western cultures.
Myoarin, you 'stole' my example of HIV as a driver of evolution.  I'll
add, though, that there was a story in the late 90's about a small
group of prostitutes in sub-Saharan Africa that, despite frequent
exposure, failed to contract HIV.  I think researchers found they had
an altered/absent receptor protein on their T-cells which the virus
requires to enter the cell.  If that were to become a wide-spread gene
mutation in the population, it would certainly confer an advantage on
those individuals that have it and serve as a tangible example of
evolution within relatively few generations.
Other medical examples of evolution at work in humans include sickle
cell disease and thalassemia, both genetic mutations in hemoglobin
that, in the heterozygote state (one normal gene, one mutated gene)
actually protects the individual from malaria, without the disease
problems associated with having two copies of the mutated gene.

The short answer is "yes", and it doesn't take 10000 years to find
out, either.  "Evolution" is simply a change in gene frequencies in a
population.  So measuring gene frequencies at one time point and then
measuring them again and some point one or more generations later
would be sufficient to show that humans are still evolving.

In fact, man has already evolved in response to environmental changes.
 One example: as some human populations began raising livestock (that
is, filled their environment with large, milk-producing mammals), they
evolved the ability to digest milk into adulthood ("lactase
persistence").  Other examples include how humans developed
agriculture and animal domestication, thus placing themselves in
disease-prone environments, and evolving disease resistence that was
lacking in indigenous populations (see Jarred Diamond's excellent book
"Guns, Germs and Steel").

Of course past examples do not prove we are still evolving, but it is
extremely difficult to imagine that we're not considering all the new
diseases (e.g. HIV) in the world that are killing people without
innate genetic resistance (at least in Africa).  Perhaps you prefer a
more strict definition of "environmental perturbation" (feel free to
clarify) that only encompasses things like pollution and global
warming.  Of course global warming will also affect disease prevalence
(e.g. mosquito-bourne diseases should become more prevalent) and could
affect human evolution that way, and other possible mechanisms could
be concocted as well.

Many thanks for the useful links provided in earlier posts
illustrating useful examples.  As for the creationist posts to this
thread, everyone is (of course) entitled to express their own
opinions, but I must object to monkeys being described as polygamous
baby-killers.  There is a great variation of mating systems in
primates, including long-term monogamy (in night monkeys or gibbons,
for example) and infanticide is quite rare in most species (maybe the
person was thinking of lions).  On a lighter note, I don't see why it
is so amazing that a creature with an animalistic nature could evolve
into one that "thought about the future? thought about spiritual
matters" over the "limited span of time" of a few million
years---after all, most teenage humans will undergo such a
transformation at some point during their lives!  As far as
"Creationism...by God explain[ing] it all", I fail to see how it
explains the geographical prevalence of lactose intolerance or sickle
cell anemia nor does it give the means for treating and curing
malaria.  Only research grounded in evolutionary biology can do these
things.  (Maybe I'm missing what "it all" is referring to, but this is
question was posted under "Biology > Science", right?)

While I don't actually disagree with orngu10, I think most scientists
would consider what orangu is referring to is not evolution, evolution
is a more long-term process which alters an entire species, not a
matter of simple differences between individuals, but a major change
in the species, such as people having an extra thumb to operate a game
controller better, or something similar (GRIN).

Just my opinion but when I breed 6 horn sheep I don't think that
actually rises to the level of "evolution."

My thanks to siliconsamurai for pointing out the confusion.  Changes
in gene frequencies over the course of a few generations are
considered microevolution; when these changes lead to new species over
the course of thousands or millions of years, it is considered
macroevolution.  Both processes are "evolution" in the scientific
sense, but the original post may only be concerned with one or the
other (it's difficult to tell).

To briefly summarize "Is human kind still evolving?":

(1) Microevolutionary change has occurred in the recent past and is
likely to be occurring now and in the near future.  The only way to
stop natural selection is either to eliminate genetic variation (doing
so is neither feasible nor desirable in humans) or eliminate
survival/fecundity differences that are genetically determined
(although modern medicine has done this in developed nations for some
diseases/disorders, it has not occurred for all diseases and there's
certainly several non-disease-related genetic traits that affect
survival and reproductive success).

(2) Macroevolutionary change has occurred in the slightly more distant
past (note the fossils of extinct hominid species), but speciation is
unlikely to occur any time in the near future on account of humans'
large and connected populations and long generation time.  After all,
many human populations had evolved in isolation (until just recently)
for thousands of years, and although some of them built up numerous
microevolutionary differences (roughly correlating with the notion of
"race"), none of them were even close to become separate species (for
example, all human populations are completely capable of
interbreeding).

It is, of course, possible to concoct stories to describe future human
speciation scenarios (maybe through genetic engineering or by
long-term isolation and environmental stress due to interstellar
travel).  We might also go extinct due to nuclear war.  It's the
future---anything can happen!  So, as a one-sentence answer to "is
human kind still evolving?" I have to say, "Almost certainly 'yes'
since the main ingredient for natural selection still exists (genetic
variation that causes differential survival or reproduction), but
there?s no way to predict the direction that evolution will take us
many generations from now since we know so little about what our
future environment will be like."

Thank you very much for such a lively discussion for all of you who
took part of it. To be honest I did not expect this much of response
and interest for just $2.00! I guess it is reflecting the current
environment of discourse in the States about creationist arguments.

I have posed this question because I am interested in connecting
biological evolution of human species to the artefact-making behaviour
as an architect who is developing a support tool for co-operation in
product design, not as former as a model but as a prototype,
(continuous process of biological nature). In order to support this
argument I have to assume an biological entity which complies with
both hummans (both individual and a collective sense) and the
artefacts (including a specific form of social behaviour, system,
tool, value and language). I am not a biologist and have no formal
education or no knowledge on evidences on the matter. That's why I
posed this question.

All comments are very interesting and inpiring for me. However, to be
honest, I was expecting comments argueing otherwise, that is no
evolution since we started to live in a cave. It is not essential to
my thesis whether it is a case or not since it is a difficult area of
study to prove. However, it is intersting to know that humans are
facing not only environmental pressure originated in the "natural"
perturbation but one which they have created, such as medicine,
disease and the social behaviour.

If so could we design our evolution by choosing specific man-made
environmental conditions? An it is still called "evolution" in proper
biological sense? I wonder.

I wish very best new year to everyone.

We most certainly could control our own 'evolution'

People have already tried, it is called 'eugenics'
- selective breeding and sterilizing defects
- controversially I consider this a good idea

Another method is screening of zygotes (fertilized eggs)

Yet another is directly modifying our DNA
- despite us supposedly having mapped the human genome, I strongly
suspect that nobody can read the map, but eventually we'll learn how
to tinker with ourselves.

What is more, not only will we be able to control our evolution, but
barring catastrophe we will do so.
Although people will bleat about it, the prospect of producing Alpha
progeny will be irresistable
- it is virtually impossible to prevent scientific tinkering
- it either goes underground or migrates to a country that tolerates it

Yes, I know it is possible. But my question is that if we start to
design life as an object does it constitute the condition of life
since the very definition of life is its self-autonomy (autopoiesis).
Then, the designed organisms (by the external agents) should be called
artefacts rather than life. Then what would be the selection criteria
for their survival if we are sole agents of controling the environment
of selection? I am not suggesting any moral judgment here but it is
the fact that there is ambiguity in distinction between biological
models and the social system of ours. This cannot be good for the
rigour of Science, or is it? If we still argue that the new situation
of our evolution raised by advancement of our knowledge and
technologies as part of biological evolution we need to isolate a
clear scientific object which could incorporate humans and their
artefact(tool)-making behaviour.

> But my question is that if we start to design life as an object does it
> constitute the condition of life since the very definition of life is its
> self-autonomy (autopoiesis).

We've entered the realm of semantics, I'm afraid, but I'll give it a
go.  Firstly, I always considered autopoiesis as meaning more
"self-producing" than "self-autonomous".  The former is certainly a
necessary condition for life, whereas autonomy (strictly defined) is
not (consider gut bacteria or domesticated crops).


> Then, the designed organisms (by the external agents) should be called
> artefacts rather than life. 

Call them what you like, I suppose, but (1) your definition of
"artefact" and "life" are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and (2)
some things that are not strictly considered alive are capable of
evolving.  Consider special computer programs that replicate
themselves in memory (subject to mutation) based on selection criteria
chosen by a programmer to solve a particular problem (look up
"artificial life" or "genetic algorithms" for more information).

> Then what would be the selection criteria for their survival if we are sole 
> agents of controling the environment of selection? 

You just answered your own question---we are!  The selection criteria
is whatever we make it.  If we want big-kerneled or drought-resistant
corn, we select for those traits (usually deliberately).  If we hunt
or catch the biggest trophy bucks or fish, we (accidently) select for
puny males.  The rules are the same as in natural selection---you must
survive and reproduce--- but humans are the ones controlling who
survives or who reproduces.

> I am not suggesting any moral judgment here but it is the fact that
there is > ambiguity in distinction between biological models and the
social system of > ours. This cannot be good for the rigour of
Science, or is it?

Agricultural science and animal breeding would be back in the dark
ages if we could not apply our knowledge of natural selection and
heredity to problems involving artificial selection by humans.  (More
correctly, our knowledge of evolution and natural selection came
largely from studying artificial selection in pigeons, guinea pigs,
peas, etc.)

> If we still argue that the new situation of our evolution raised by 
> advancement of our knowledge and technologies as part of biological 
> evolution we need to isolate a clear scientific object which could
> incorporate humans and their artefact(tool)-making behaviour.

Well, I think "evolution" serves quite nicely.  Even fields that are
not natural sciences, like linguistics, use evolutionary concepts. 
Consider Richard Dawkin's application of "meme" to social phenomena.

These $2 interesting questions are indeed more
a 'invitation to a  debate' then questions.

This comment however, could be posted as a 'real question':

From: tak123-ga on 05 Jan 2006 02:37 PST
If so could we design our evolution by choosing specific man-made
environmental conditions? An it is still called "evolution" in proper
biological sense? I wonder. 

  It  could be interesting to see if anything was written on that.
  We would have to differentiate other 'man-made conditions' from 
  just a lab which would manipulate DNA material. I suppose you are
  thinking about architecture here? Things like cohousing may have some
  effect in this context:
 
  Strongest evo-selector (evolutionary pressure which dominates fitness)
  for humans is not 'surviving to adulthood' any more 
 
          (depending on the time scale of course, (the genocides are
not such a            distant past. On that - consult  Diamond's books
mentioned  e.g. in:
          http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=540280
          )
 as most people born today, do survive till age when they can reproduce.
    But many do not reproduce. Modern people have small number of
children (education is expensive) and many have none. Theese have
'more fun perhaps', but are deselected from the gene pool. Without
that selector, mankind will die-out in few? generations).
   So, to go back to achitecture and extrapolate to sci-fiction:
   may be in the future many people will pool they resources
    (genetical and economical), will form intentional communities,
     which will raise small number of children each. It could go beyond
     communes of 60ties and current cohousing movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohousing
 
 Of course, it does not depends on genes only any more. Culture becomes dominant
 part of the selector in  what prof. Wilson calls gene-culture coevolution
http://www.zebra.net/~ernie.seckinger/Wilson.html